Duh…Lee Harvey Oswald you tin foil hat wearing conspiracy addled doofus.

It’s possible he wasn’t acting completely alone and it’s possible he was, it’s even minimally possible there was a second unnoticed shooter, but there were definitely not 8 shooters all identified with known specific payments made to each.

'Doofus' is the most common spelling, but apparently 'dufus' is a less-used variant. So in theory I owe bob an apology for that, but... meh.

Jesus fuck bob, at least spell your insults correctly! It's "doofus" and "loser" you fucking knob.

Got your rage right here!

*related https://videosift.com/video/Nandi-Bushel-plays-crazy-cover-of-Nirvana-In-Bloom

Not sure if I did that right. I'm a bit of a videosift doofus.

What? The home invaders? The reporter? The police corporal? Oh Bob, you dumb, racist doofus.

Meanwhile, this is a great example of why nobody should have guns. It looks like a fucking lazertag game in a fortress of unopened toilet paper rolls. Having lethal force be a part of that equation is just loony.

lol, those doofuses who broke in to skinny dip... "This bud's for you."

I'm assuming it was the chance to repeatedly punch this doofus in the head that convinced the assorted beauties to participate.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

what a doofus

Why would anyone bother with this "craft"? It reminds me of the doofus that dropped out of university in order to devote more time to making a paper 747

Why was he wearing a head cam, and still trying to take a selfie? What about this ride was so earth shattering that it needed to be documented? Nice basket, BTW. There's no way that could look doofus-y

I don't like the sarcasm button. If someone can recognize sarcasm, they get the point, if they can't they think I'm an asshole or doofus but I'm OK with it being lost of them. Labeling a post sarcasm is like popping your kids balloon she just got.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

snails are voracious crop pests and quick reproducers as well - I would think that figuring out their mating habits would be really important.

Steve Moore is a sensationalist doofus.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^rottenseed:

That wikipedia entry was way too simple in that it doesn't explain boo but the equations. I think it boils down to conservation of (angular) momentum when an object has angular momentum along (3) axes. So far I can't give but a rudimentary explanation. A more simple system that would convey the fundamentals would if you were to hold a spinning bike wheel while sitting in an office chair (that can spin). As you rotate your arms (holding the axis of bicycle tire spin) the angular momentum lost will be gained in the seat you're sitting on (making you spin). Here, watch this doofus and see for yourself...

I don't know if it's more complicated in theory, or just in added dimensions
>>


^dannym3141:
It's a shame that hyperphysics doesn't have anything on this cos they're usually a good balance of words and maths (i find the wikipedia entry disappointingly mathematical; i expect a bit of background and discussion) as this is something i discovered as a kid playing with the sky remote.
I used to hold the controller at the base with a thumb and a finger or two, then try to flip it end over end one full flip and catch it in the palm of my hand. I found it really hard, but i eventually worked out that it was because i was imparting some sort of force to it as my wrist twisted because if i added more twist it would do a complete spin on both axes and land nicely, and when i tried less twist it would only do half a turn on that axis.
So then i started to hold it across, with one thumb and a finger (bit like a barre grip for a guitarist) straight across it width ways and gently flip it, and bet people they couldn't do it every time but i could



You don't lose angular momentum by rotating the wheel. When you hold the bicycle wheel vertically, the angular momentum vector of the system in the axis of you and your seat is 0, as the angular momentum of the wheel is not in that same axis.

When you turn the wheel horizontal, the angular momentum vector is pointing either up or down depending on which way you turn it. So the chair spins in such a way that it sets up an opposing angular momentum vector (ie. by spinning opposite way to the wheel) to make the net ang' mom' 0 in that axis.

I think it is likely to have something to do with the moment of inertia of the object about the 3 different axes, and probably the axis around which it is unstable has the smallest value of angular momentum (don't wish to prove that for the object in the video lol). I would call on the example of my tv remote. I've just tried spinning it around two axes - end over end, and helicoptor wise. The third axis is width ways, and you don't even need maths to intuit that i require less force to spin it width ways; more of the mass is centred towards the axis, and angular momentum is dependant upon mass and the distance of the mass from the axis of rotation.

So if it's got less angular momentum, it will not only require less force to make it rotate (remember i have to use my trick to reduce force imparted on either side of the controller as i toss it), but it also has less resistance (any?) to being spun in that axis whilst already spinning in another.

My theory at least. I have a feeling it's close as that seems to tie in with the maths too. Could just be something that only makes sense mathematically. It's not like anyone's ever explained why fermions can't coexist in the same quantum state to me in anything but maths either.